Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The amendments to the claims, filed on 03/17/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 6 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-22 are pending with claims 21-22 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is below.
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1-7 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues as follows:
1. The combination of O’Grady and Segev is improper because the Office has not shown a proper rationale to modify the minimally invasive surgical system of O’Grady. See Remarks, p. 11-14 of 17; and
2. The combination of O’Grady and Segev does not disclose all limitations of claim 1 because Segev teaching only a single video stream can’t be combined with O’Grady to disclose, teach or suggest "a first video stream based on visible light from a surgical area captured by an imaging device," "a second video stream based on fluorescence from the surgical area captured by the imaging device," and "wherein the operating in the second display mode comprises directing the display device to display, in place of the first video stream, [the] second video stream based on fluorescence from the surgical area captured by the imaging device," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Remarks, p. 11-15 of 17.
3. Other claims, claims 17 and 20 and the dependent claims, are patentable over the cited arts for at least the same reasons presented above.
Summary of Responses:
Examiner respectfully disagrees and addresses each remark mentioned above as follows (emphasis added):
Determination Principles for basic requirements of Prima Facie Case of Obviousness:
A. Claim Interpretation: In Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of Claim 1 in view of Specification, Fig. 8, the claimed invention is a system displaying ‘a surgical area captured by an imaging device’ in a first display mode (i.e. ‘a first stream’) of ‘visible light’ generated/transmitted. When an event of either a surgical instrument in operation or in idle state occurs within the surgical area, the system is switched to displaying the surgical area in a second display mode (i.e. ‘a second stream’) of ‘fluorescence’ generated/transmitted.
B. Disclosure of claim limitation as to O’Grady: O’Grady, Fig. 2 meet the claim limitations [See claim 1 rejection below]. Furthermore, O’Grady, Figs. 1-3; col. 5, 6, discloses ‘toggled between these two imaging modes’ by switch 152, e.g., ‘a foot switch, a double click of the master grips’ as the claim feature “an event occurs”.
C. Obviousness of Segev: First, O’Grady and Segev are in the same filed of utilization of surgical endoscope with lighting control/switch system [O’Grady: Figs. 1-3: col. 2: ‘switching between imaging modes on a stereoscopic display’ of fluorescent light and white light; Segev: Figs. 1-6; para. 0038, 0085-0087: ‘switching two sources of illumination’ for ‘viewing preoperative imaging data via a display’]. While O’Grady teaches switching display modes (of illumination sources) by a manual event (e.g., foot switch), Segev teaches switching illumination sources (to view preoperative image data via a display) based on ‘no motion’ detected as an automatic event. One ordinarily skilled in the art can replace a manual event to an automatic one to switch light sources for imaging modes. See MPEP, 2144.04 (III). Furthermore, O’Grady discloses motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
1. The determination principles mentioned-above establish the proper combination of O’Grady and Segev to modify the manual light switch to automatic switch for imaging modes in the surgical system of O’Grady. See Remarks, p. 11-14 of 17; and
2. O’Grady in view of Segev does disclose all limitations of claim 1. It is noticed that one ordinarily skilled in the art relies upon Segev teaching no-motion detection (not a single video stream) to modify O’Grady manually light switching to automatically light switching for different display modes. MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
3. Other claims, claims 17 and 20 and the dependent claims, are rejected over the cited arts for at least the same reasons presented above.
4. For the new claims, the remarks are rendered moot since no rejection of the new claims exists prior to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
Regarding Double Patenting, the double patenting rejection of claims 1, 9, 17, and 10 against claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,178,387 is held in abeyance until the claims are found to be in condition of allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 17-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Grady et al. (“O’Grady”) [U.S Patent No. 9,019,345 B2] in view of Segev et al. (“Segev”) [US 2021/0325649 A1]
Regarding claim 1, O’Grady meets the claim limitations as follows:
A system comprising:
a memory storing instructions [Fig. 1, 4: Central Controller ‘190’: ‘Memory 402’; col. 9, ll. 55-65: ‘computer executable instructions’]; and a processor [Fig. 1, 4: Central Controller ‘190’: ‘Processor Module 401’] communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
operate in a first display mode [col. 2, ll. 35-65; col. 4, ll. 27-31; col. 5, ll. 50-55: ‘the normal output illumination of white light illumination source’] by directing a display device to display a first video stream based on visible light [col. 5, ll. 50-55: ‘in a normal imaging mode, only visible images are output to display 151’] from a surgical area (i.e. ‘a scene in the first imaging mode’, e.g. tissue ‘103’) [Fig. 1: ‘103’; col. 1, ll. 40-55] captured by an imaging device [Fig. 1: camera 120L, 120R],
determine, while operating in the first display mode, that an event (e.g. ‘a double click of the master grips that control the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 2: ‘mode select switch 152’; col. 5, ll. 50-65] occurs within the surgical area, the event comprising:
an operation of a surgical instrument (e.g. ‘a double click of the master grips that control the surgical instruments’) other than the imaging device, or an idle state event associated with the surgical instrument or the imaging device, and
switch [Fig. 2; ‘High to Low 274’; col. 6: ‘If the imaging mode is changed from the normal imaging mode to the fluorescence imaging, … the change in overall scene luminance is high to low’], in response to the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area, from operating in the first display mode (i.e. the normal imaging mode’) to operating in a second display mode (i.e. the fluorescence imaging mode’) [col. 6],
wherein the operating in the second display mode comprises directing the display device to display [Fig. 2; ‘High to Low 274’; col. 6: ‘If the imaging mode is changed from the normal imaging mode to the fluorescence imaging, … the change in overall scene luminance is high to low’], in place of the first video stream, a second video stream based on fluorescence from the surgical area captured by the imaging device.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
determine, while operating in the first display mode, that an event occurs within the surgical area, the event comprising:
an operation of a surgical instrument other than the imaging device, or an idle state event associated with the surgical instrument or the imaging device, and
switch, in response to the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area, from operating in the first display mode to operating in a second display mode.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determine [Fig. 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067: ‘(a) motion detection … (b) tool detection’ for adjustment of illumination; para. 0085-0087: disclosing ‘switching between illuminating with white light and light in a harmful spectrum], while operating in the first display mode, that an event occurs within the surgical area, the event comprising:
an operation of a surgical instrument other than the imaging device [Fig. 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067, 0085-0087], or an idle state event (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] associated with the surgical instrument or the imaging device, and
switch [Fig. 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067: ‘(a) motion detection … (b) tool detection’ for adjustment of illumination; para. 0085-0087: disclosing ‘switching between illuminating with white light and light in a harmful spectrum], in response to the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area, from operating in the first display mode to operating in a second display mode.
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 2, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the idle state event comprises an absence of an operation of the surgical instrument or the imaging device for a threshold period of time.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the idle state event comprises an absence of an operation of the surgical instrument (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] or the imaging device for a threshold period of time [para. 0085-0087: ‘during periods of time when it is determined or estimated that the surgeon does not need the light’].
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 3, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 2, wherein the absence of the operation of the surgical instrument or the imaging device comprises an absence of a movement of the surgical instrument or the imaging device.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the absence of the operation of the surgical instrument or the imaging device comprises an absence of a movement of the surgical instrument (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] or the imaging device.
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 4, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 2, wherein the absence of the operation of the surgical instrument or the imaging device comprises an absence of a tissue interaction functionality or a sensing functionality of the surgical instrument.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the absence of the operation of the surgical instrument or the imaging device comprises an absence of a tissue interaction (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] functionality or a sensing functionality of the surgical instrument.
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 5, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the event comprises the idle state event; and the determining that the event occurs comprises determining that the surgical instrument has remained out of a field of view of the imaging device for a threshold period of time.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein: the event comprises the idle state event (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’]; and the determining that the event occurs comprises determining that the surgical instrument has remained out of a field of view of the imaging device (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] for a threshold period of time [para. 0085-0087: ‘during periods of time when it is determined or estimated that the surgeon does not need the light’].
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 7, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting an operation of a tissue interaction functionality of the surgical instrument.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument [Fig. 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067; para. 0085-0087: ‘(a) motion detection … (b) tool detection’ for adjustment of illumination; ‘detection surgical tools within the region of illumination’]; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting an operation of a tissue interaction functionality of the surgical instrument (i.e. ‘determine a stage of a surgical procedure 40’) [Fig. 2, 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067; para. 0085-0087: ‘(a) motion detection … (b) tool detection’ for adjustment of illumination; ‘detection surgical tools within the region of illumination’].
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Note: The claim limitation “an augmented medical vision system” is disclosed by O’Grady [col. 5, ll. 55: ‘to create augmented images’] and by Segev [para. 0119: ‘augmented-reality head mounted systems’].
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Note: The claim limitation “an augmented medical vision system” is disclosed by O’Grady [col. 5, ll. 55: ‘to create augmented images’] and by Segev [para. 0119: ‘augmented-reality head mounted systems’].
Regarding claim 21, O’Grady meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the switching from operating in the first
display mode to operating in a second display mode comprises:
determining, based on the event, a display mode in which the system should operate (i.e. optionally operate) from among a plurality of display modes (i.e. ‘a normal imaging mode’ and ‘the fluorescence imaging mode’) [col. 2, ll. 35-65; col. 4, ll. 27-31; col. 5, ll. 50-55: ‘the normal output illumination of white light illumination source’], the display mode comprising the second display mode [Fig. 2; ‘High to Low 274’; col. 6: ‘If the imaging mode is changed from the normal imaging mode to the fluorescence imaging, … the change in overall scene luminance is high to low’].
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Grady et al. (“O’Grady”) [U.S Patent No. 9,019,345 B2] in view of Segev et al. (“Segev”) [US 2021/0325649 A1] in further view of Hamadeh [US 2008/0319311 A1]
Regarding claim 8, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting a movement of the surgical instrument to a position located within a predetermined distance of an anatomical feature located within the surgical area.
However in the same field of endeavor Segev discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument [Fig. 3: ‘Motion Detection 150’ or ‘Tool Detection/Identification 152’; para. 0067, 0085-0087]; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting a movement of the surgical instrument to a position located (e.g. ‘no motion detected’ and/or ‘no surgical tools present within the surgical field’) [para. 0085-0087: ‘illumination may be reduced’] within a predetermined distance of an anatomical feature located within the surgical area.
O’Grady and Segev are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and Segev as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Segev does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting a movement of the surgical instrument to a position located within a predetermined distance of an anatomical feature located within the surgical area.
However in the same field of endeavor Hamadeh discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein: the event comprises the operation of the surgical instrument; and the determining that the event occurs within the surgical area comprises detecting a movement of the surgical instrument to a position (i.e. ‘the actual location’) located within a predetermined distance [para. 0006-0009: ‘The distance between the predicted location of the surgical instrument tip and the actual location of the surgical instrument tip may be compared with a threshold value’] of an anatomical feature (i.e. ‘the predicted location of the surgical instrument tip’ in relation to anatomical features of interest) [para. 0002: ‘navigate a tool or instrument involved in the procedure in relation to anatomical features of interest] located within the surgical area.
O’Grady, Segev and Hamadeh are combinable because they are from the same field of surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady, Segev and Hamadeh as motivation to include a system and method disclosed by Hamadeh for improving the navigation accuracy of a surgical tool or instrument [Hamadeh: para. 0001-0002].
Claims 12 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Grady et al. (“O’Grady”) [U.S Patent No. 9,019,345 B2] in view of Segev et al. (“Segev”) [US 2021/0325649 A1] in further view of McDowall et al. [US 9,211,058 B2 provided in IDS filed on 01/09/2025]
Regarding claim 12, O’Grady meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine, while operating in the second display mode, that an additional event occurs within the surgical area; and switch, in response to the determining that the additional event occurs within the surgical area, from operating in the second display mode to operating in the first display mode.
However in the same field of endeavor McDowall discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine, while operating in the second display mode [Fig. 4: ‘421B’; ‘422B’], that an additional event occurs [Fig. 4: ‘Mode Switch’ at t2] within the surgical area; and switch, in response to the determining that the additional event [Fig. 4: ‘Mode Switch’ at t2] occurs within the surgical area, from operating in the second display mode to operating in the first display mode [Fig. 4: ‘Normal Visible Left Image’; ‘Normal Visible Right Image’].
O’Grady and McDowall are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and McDowall as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Regarding claim 15, O’Grady meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a visible light image stream based on the visible light [col. 4: ‘white light source 111 could use a Xenon lamp … to create broadband white illumination light for visible images’] from the surgical area captured by the imaging device and generate a fluorescence image stream based on the fluorescence [col. 4: ‘For example, narrow band light from fluorescence excitation source 112 is used to excite tissue-specific fluorophores so that fluorescence images of specific tissue within the scene are acquired by cameras 120L, 120R’] from the surgical area captured by the imaging device; the first video stream includes only the visible light image stream; and the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream or a combination of the visible light image stream and the fluorescence image stream.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
the first video stream includes only the visible light image stream; and the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream or a combination of the visible light image stream and the fluorescence image stream.
However in the same field of endeavor McDowall discloses the deficient claim as follows:
the first video stream includes only the visible light image stream [Fig. 4: ‘Normal Visible Left Image’; ‘Normal Visible Right Image’]; and the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream or a combination of the visible light image stream and the fluorescence image stream [Fig. 4: ‘421B’ and ‘422B’].
O’Grady and McDowall are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination control in surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady and McDowall as motivation to switch illumination/imaging modes for a minimally invasive teleoperated surgical system to reduce trauma to the body [O’Grady: col. 1, ll. 15-35] or to reduce hazardous illumination to the eyes [Segev: para. 0002].
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Grady et al. (“O’Grady”) [U.S Patent No. 9,019,345 B2] in view of Segev et al. (“Segev”) [US 2021/0325649 A1] in further view of Ogata et al. (“Ogata”) [US 2016/0317003 A1 provided in IDS filed on 01/09/2025]
Regarding claim 16, O’Grady meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a visible light image stream based on the visible light [col. 4: ‘white light source 111 could use a Xenon lamp … to create broadband white illumination light for visible images’] from the surgical area captured by the imaging device and generate a fluorescence image stream based on the fluorescence [col. 4: ‘For example, narrow band light from fluorescence excitation source 112 is used to excite tissue-specific fluorophores so that fluorescence images of specific tissue within the scene are acquired by cameras 120L, 120R’] from the surgical area captured by the imaging device; and the first video stream includes a combination (i.e. ‘augmented images’) [col. 5, ll. 50-60] of the visible light image stream and the fluorescence image stream based on the fluorescence from the surgical area [col. 5, ll. 50-60: In fluorescence imaging mode, fluorescence images are superimposed on visible images to create augmented images’], and the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream.
However in the same field of endeavor Ogata discloses the deficient claim as follows:
the second video stream includes only the fluorescence image stream [Fig. 6,7, 8, 9; para. 0088, 0101: ‘The monitor 40 displays the fluorescence emission light image on a screen during a period Ti’].
O’Grady, Segev and Ogata are combinable because they are from the same field of surgical operation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady, Segev and Ogata as motivation to switch between ‘the displays of the fluorescence emission light image and the visible light image’ to reduce degradation in image quality of a fluorescence emission light image [Ogata: para. 0005-0007].
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Grady in view of Segev in further view of Zeng et al. (“Zeng”) [US 2005/0059894 A1]
Regarding claim 22, O’Grady in view of Segev meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
O’Grady does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The system of claim 1, wherein the first video stream and the second video
stream are captured simultaneously by the imaging device.
However in the same field of endeavor Zeng discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first video stream and the second video stream are captured simultaneously by the imaging device [Fig. 5; para. 0058: ‘simultaneous real-time white light and fluorescence imaging’].
O’Grady, Segev and Zeng are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscopy.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of O’Grady, Segev and Zeng as motivation to include simultaneously white light and fluorescence imaging to overcome the limitations of fluorescence imaging endoscopy [Zeng: para: 0010-0011].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 9, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights